This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-02-27 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| This fact was elucidated on by the Court in the case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Citytrust Investment Phils. Inc.,[20] where it held that RR No. 12-80 had already been superseded by RR No. 17-84, viz.: x x x Revenue Regulations No. 12-80, issued on November 7, 1980, had been superseded by Revenue Regulations No. 17-84 issued on October 12, 1984. Section 4 (e) of Revenue Regulations No. 12-80 provides that only items of income actually received shall be included in the tax base for computing the GRT. On the other hand, Section 7 (c) of Revenue Regulations No. 17-84 includes all interest income in computing the GRT, thus: | |||||
|
2007-10-18 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| The issues raised herein are not novel. In a catena of cases,[16] we categorically ruled that the 20% FWT on a bank's interest income forms part of the taxable gross receipts for purposes of computing the 5% GRT.[17] The 5% GRT, as imposed by Section 119 (now Section 121)[18] of the Tax Code, by its nature applies to all the receipts without any deduction, unless otherwise provided by law. Any deduction, exemption or exclusion from gross receipts is inconsistent with the policy of the law and is not normally allowed in a gross receipts tax, to maintain simplicity in tax collection, and to assure a steady source of state revenue even during periods of economic slowdown.[19] It also changes the result and meaning of gross receipts to net receipts.[20] | |||||